W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2009

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-12-02

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 08:42:21 -0800
Cc: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FCF15327-460A-4A34-A927-F7D8685AAB69@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There could be a layout that is primarily ltr that uses float and clear for layout purposes (so that the navigation bar is on the left and a footer at the bottom, for instance). Within that, there could be a large rtl block in which you have a drop-cap-like ornament with 'float:start'. In this case, I think you could want 'clear:start' for the paragraph after ornament, and then 'clear:all' for the footer. I'm not sure that 'clear:both' makes sense when there are more than two possible values for 'float', except for legacy purposes, but 'clear:all' does make sense, and is a more standard CSS keyword.
> 
> I think clear:both would handle that situation correctly.  Typically
> in float-based layouts the content area is *also* floated, so clears
> don't escape and screw up the rest of the layout.

OK, it was a pretty simple example, but more complex layouts exist, and my gut tells me that if we need text-direction-dependent and -independent values for float, that we also need them for clear.

Can't we all just make our decisions based on my gut?  ;)

Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 16:43:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT